TAPPER: For years, you have been very protective of your daughter, Chelsea Clinton, especially when she was a child, of course, and now she's a grown woman. This week, she surprised a lot of people when she unleashed one of the most scathing attacks of the cycle, accusing Bernie Sanders of wanting to empower Republican governors who might then cut people's health care. PolitiFact called Chelsea's remarks mostly false. Former Obama adviser David Axelrod said it was not an honest attack. And liberal columnist Mark Shields said the attack turned your daughter into a -- quote -- "political hack." Do you think it was a mistake to muddy up Chelsea like that?
CLINTON: Look, she was asked a question. I love my daughter. And she answered a question. And all I can say, Jake, is that the only health plan we know of from Senator Sanders is what's described in the legislation that he has introduced nine times in the Congress, in the Senate.....
TAPPER: So, no regrets about using Chelsea that way?
CLINTON: Oh, I didn't use her. She answered a question. And, you know, she gave a factual answer, based on the legislation that is the only way we know what Senator Sanders is actually proposing, because he introduced it nine times in the Congress.
TAPPER: OK. PolitiFact said it was mostly false, but let's move on.
January 17, 2016
Did Hillary make "a mistake to muddy up Chelsea" — "using Chelsea that way"? — Jake Tapper asks.
On "State of the Union" this morning:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
56 comments:
"Former Obama adviser David Axelrod said it was not an honest attack."
I'm afraid that is conclusive. Axelrod knows pretty much everything there is to know about dishonesty.
Appears that MSM has discovered at long last that the Empress and her daughter have no clothes.
And that the Clinton women are congenital liars.
Jupiter said...
"Former Obama adviser David Axelrod said it was not an honest attack."
I'm afraid that is conclusive. Axelrod knows pretty much everything there is to know about dishonesty.
1/17/16, 12:52 PM
You have said it all. There is nothing more to comment on in this thread.
I fully believe this was Chelsea's idea. She is trying to be as tough as one of mama's hired assassins. But she's a Fredo, not a Michael.
I have some friends who actually witnessed a train wreck in a remote part of Wyoming once, years and tears ago. They were first responders.
People will be watching her tonight mainly to see if she can sober up and deal with Laslo's issues. When a person "bottoms out" so deeply as she, any improvement looks dramatic.
You mean dirty her up...like with a cloth?
And Webb Hubbell's daughter can speak for herself, Tapper.
Why does anyone care what Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky has to say?
Martha @ 1:11 must be Laslo under another name. She wants us to think of a Mother-Daughter nude duo who lie with their genitals. That is even over the top for Laslo.
How do we know Hillary is lying? Her lips are moving.
Well, since Trump took Bill Clinton out of the game (accused rapists for Hilary doesn't have a good tone), Chelsea is one of the few arrows left in her quiver. Hey, sweet little, YOUTHFUL Chelsea. Of course attack dog ode takes some of that glitter away pretty effectively...
Oh yeah, "Appears that MSM has discovered at long last that the Empress and her daughter have no clothes.". My inner eyes, MY INNER EYES!
Liberal Jake Tapper references left-wing Politi"fact" in undermining lefty Hillary Clinton campaign strategy.
garage and Amanda hardest hit.
Let's face it, Chelsea sees her political inheritance circling the drain and she needed no prodding whatsoever to come to the defense of her doddering, decaying and pickled mother.
I just don't like her (Chelsea). She hasn't done anything besides be born to grifters and marry into a family of grifters and underperform when handed opportunity after opportunity that people with actual talent, brains and character would give their right hands for. And despite this people keep treating her as though she has something worthwhile to say about anything. I find it terribly annoying. She should just go live a quiet life spending her family money and raising her kids.
Blogger Johanna Lapp said...
I fully believe this was Chelsea's idea. She is trying to be as tough as one of mama's hired assassins. But she's a Fredo, not a Michael.
1/17/16, 1:13 PM
-----------------
Did you mean to type Fredo or Greedo?
[/doublemeaningstarwarsdweeb]
Official: Finally, on January 17, 2016, at the age of 35, Chelsea Clinton, as the child of protective political parents, is no longer 'off limits' to the media.
Thank you.
"TAPPER: OK. PolitiFact said it was mostly false, but let's move on."
Tapper is quite the hard charger.
I don't know what reality you have to live in to think Chelsea helps your campaign in any way--she's even less likable than her mother. Did they need more help appealing to the spoiled incompetent trustfunder demographic?
If she's incapable of telling, or even recognizing the existence of truth while just a candidate, imagine how much fun it'll be once she's finally predident.
Lol
I read somewhere else that he actually asked her if she had been interviewed by the FBI yet.....
Tapper better hope Hillary doesn't win.....
This is making me sympathetic towards Clinton. I never thought I'd feel that for her.
It's her child, sure, but Chelsea is an adult woman. She isn't using her. If a parent is running for office, and the child is an adult, I would fully expect the adult children to help their parent get elected.
I expected Mitt Romney's kids to do it. I expect Trumps kids to do it.
If they don't, I would wonder, what's wrong with the parent that their child doesn't love them enough to help them out as they can?
Why is Tapper invoking Politifact as if that is an honorable and honest disburser of fact?
Chelsea honey take my advice: your family foundation has several hundred million dollars in capital. Get a really good financial investment guy-not your husband, no offense, to manage the money. Properly invested in a combination of real estate investment partnerships and MLPs (vehicles generally not available to the little guys) it can yield right now about 9% cash flow. On several hundred million that is quite a haul annually. While its true the law (again for little people) requires you to give away 5% of the capital yearly that can be dealt with with the income (the great thing is about these investments is the equity value can go down a lot and the cash flow still remains great and you could possibly spin the equity value drop favorably for the IRS) plus you can use up to 15% of the earnings as overhead of the foundation (getting the hint honey?) so stay out of the fray and look like the clean Clinton. Don't worry about mom, she may get referred for an indictment but she won't be prosecuted.Obama will take care of that with a pardon if need be. Dad, don't worry about him either. He is also set moneywise (as well as mom) and while he may have another scandal out there if mom isn't president no one will really care. So stay out of the mud and ride the gravy train for years and years to come.
If they don't, I would wonder, what's wrong with the parent that their child doesn't love them enough to help them out as they can?
What's wrong with a parent who doesn't love their child enough to leave them out of a campaign?
I hope that when my kids are 35, they are happily ensconced in their own homes, jobs, marriages and children. Not "trying to help me get ____________ ".
@Eric I would normally agree with you about kids standing up for their parents in political campaigns but this rule may have an exception when one or perhaps even both of your parents might be looking at criminal referrals.
All right, then, I'll go to hell, but it must be said. It didn't take that much for Chelsea to become an attack dog. She already had the dog part down.
Way, way off-topic: the Badgers just beat Michigan in one of the most exciting college basketball games I've ever seen.
Chelsea would do well to stay out of the public spotlight. It is not attractive or flattering..
@Bob Ellison, there is, of course, a difference between Michigan and Michigan State.
Polifact would rate your comment "mostly false."
Yes, Big Mike, you're correct. I don't think I'll ever learn how to name State v. State State anywhere.
BTW, either one of the Bush twins are worth a thousand of Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky.
Hillary is claiminmg she is not responsible for what Chelsea said.
What Chelsea seems like carefully chosen words so you can't briefly say - IT'S A LIE.
There will a debate on NBC at 9 pm tonight
Politifact says "Clinton’s statement makes it sound like Sanders’ plan would leave many people uninsured, which is antithetical to the goal of Sanders’ proposal: universal health care." We've been hearing this kind of "fact check" for at least a decade: Someone says that Obama's proposed medical insurance plan will reduce people's medical insurance options without reducing their premiums, and the Fact checker says: Obama's plan proposes to reduce premiums by $2,500 per year, while allowing people to keep their existing policies if they like them.
I suspect there's some truth to the Clintons' critique of Sanders' proposal, but with the Clintons "some truth" is always going to be overwhelmed by "a whole bunch of lies." The old saying that "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" seems to be true in this case, too.
Politifact says "Clinton’s statement makes it sound like Sanders’ plan would leave many people uninsured, which is antithetical to the goal of Sanders’ proposal: universal health care."
Trying to imagine "Politifact says "Clinton’s statement makes it sound like Bush's plan would leave many people vulnerable to warrantless wiretaps and incarceration without due process, which is antithetical to the goal of Bush's proposal: defending America.""
FBI investigates Hillary and Clinton Foundation for public corruption while Chelsea is on foundation board. I'd say Chelsea is at risk so she's all in.
PB said...
FBI investigates Hillary and Clinton Foundation for public corruption while Chelsea is on foundation board. I'd say Chelsea is at risk so she's all in.
1/17/16, 4:19 PM'
You are right. Didn't think of it. She would be a co-conspirator. Can an adult child be compelled to testify against a parent? Does the Federal Bureau provide for family cells?
I've never given Chelsea two thoughts, but this makes me pity her. Her father is a sexual predator, most likely a sociopath. She needs a lifetime of therapy to deal with the damage of being that man's child. And imagine what it's like to have Hillary for a mother. If she's playing attack dog for her mom, odds are she hasn't realized how much anger she has a right to feel.
Let's hope that there are no lamps or ashtrays on the debate stage this evening -- Hillary's going to be in a throwing mood tonight!
I give Hillary a pass on this. I watched the documentary on Romney and realized that his kids can say stupid shit too. That's what kids do. Plus, I agree with Kate; Chelsea has really shitty parents.
Ironically, Trump's daughter Ivanka is one genuinely smart dame.
ABC and Axelrod are attacking the Clinton's.
The fix may be in.
That's been in the cards for a year at least, given the sources of all the email leaks, and current FBI investigation rumors.
I don't see what all this is leading up to though. If the White House were angling to slot in Biden they should have done so months ago. Whatever, there are obviously deep waters here.
This all is like the old Kremlinologist hobby of figuring out who was in and out by reading between the lines of Pravda and who got to stand where on which podiums.
I understand that as part of the prisoner release deal with Iran, Obama gave pre trial pardons to various Iranian operatives, as opposed to simply dropping charges which would have left them open to future possible prosecution. (This is supposedly very unusual)
So here's what I'm thinking... as a sort of olive branch extended to the Clinton family he could give everyone in the Clinton family a pre-indictment pardon. That way voters could feel confident about voting for Hillary and not have to worry that she might bring future shame on the democratic party.
From a comment I made last night:
"She could have gone her own way, and lived a respectable, honest life.
She has instead chosen to be a willing and eager active participant of the corruption of the "Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation" -- she even gets equal billing in the name.
$354,190,170 in assets as of 12/2014.
That foundation is the Mafia of American Government, and Chelsea is proud to be a Face for it, and to profit from it. Every time she cashes a check a little more of America dies."
But what I do not like about the quote Althouse posted:
"TAPPER: OK. PolitiFact said it was mostly false, but let's move on. "
So media will rely on other media to determine what is true and what is false?
To add weight to their supposition?
I proclaim Chelsea a Whore. It might be 'mostly false'.
Mostly.
I am Laslo.
Laslo has permanently altered some neurons in my brain so that I read this entire set of comments while trying to shut out a set of pictures but the trouble is you can't close the inner eye and then I was trying to see whether he had commented and asking myself whether I'd leap over or wallow and then while that went on other commenters altered a few more neurons near the Laslo ones and
... and I think "the Emperor / Emperess has no clothes" simile should be banned for six months so we can recover. Also shampoo, vodka, hair - these words are microaggressions and I want a trigger warning.
"I proclaim Chelsea a Whore. It might be 'mostly false'."
Mostly false you say?
David Shuster 2008: "There's just something a little bit unseemly to me that Chelsea's out there calling up celebrities, saying support my mom... doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
There seems to be a trend developing.
"What you are saying is either inaccurate or a lie but let's move on."
I think it was Edward R. Murrow who first said that.
My son chose a Lego superhero book tonight for a bedtime story. Wonder Woman and some other female snark about how Batman and Superman are idiots. Eventually the women save Gotham in spite of the male superheroes screwing everything up.
This is a book for five-year-olds.
It's in the trash. Not in the recycling bin.
When a Democrat loses Politifact...
She needs a lifetime of therapy to deal with the damage of being that man's child.
She is not Bill Clinton's daughter. She is the daughter of Webb "Fish Lips" Hubbell. Pictures don't lie.
I don't understand why anyone cares about what Chelsea does or does not do. She has no discernable significant talent. She is a campaign prop.
Good thing Mrs. Mezvinsky is following in her mother's footsteps and not those of the woman who raised her. Much more profitable.
I'd definitely "hit that". (Chelsea ... Not Hillary.)
There's a difference between bringing out your kids to soften your image and say nice things about you, and bringing them out to attack your opponents (particularly on weak grounds as the Clintons have done here). Just remember there is no point so low that these people cannot sink to it. Now imagine this gang running the government for another four years.
Post a Comment